My main takeaway from the P&H article is that the writing "process" is a complicated activity that involves not merely a linear process but actually a recursive set of multiple related and interacting processes. Students prewrite, then draft, and then revise--true. They are also engaged in some drafting-like subprocesses while they prewrite, however, and revision and editing often happen at the same time that the student is drafting. Further, the research is unclear on how exactly the subprocesses behave or interact. What research there is often seems contradictory.
Because of this, it will be important for me as an instructor not to over-emphasize process, as though doing the right mental exercises in the right order will somehow magically guarantee a high-quality product. Instead, I should concentrate on teaching students to look for tools they find to be useful in pursuing quality content, including the traditional writing process, but never hidebound by any particular procedure or other.
As the article argues, the process model as it has developed is a better representation of writing and learning writing than more traditional models--but the process model too is incomplete, developing, changing, working through weaknesses. I should be open to doing whatever works in terms of coaxing writerly development from my students.
On a side note, this article also commented on an old question of mine: To what extent should professional writers and their processes serve as a model for students? The answer seems to be that while these authors might offer some useful points, they are at the same time 1) working with extensive background in genre and technique knowledge that students will not have, 2) working in a very specific storytelling domain that may not involve the same strategies as whatever domain in which the student is working. Because of this, professional writing process should be used as a model only with caveats and supplements from other resources.
Because of this, it will be important for me as an instructor not to over-emphasize process, as though doing the right mental exercises in the right order will somehow magically guarantee a high-quality product. Instead, I should concentrate on teaching students to look for tools they find to be useful in pursuing quality content, including the traditional writing process, but never hidebound by any particular procedure or other.
As the article argues, the process model as it has developed is a better representation of writing and learning writing than more traditional models--but the process model too is incomplete, developing, changing, working through weaknesses. I should be open to doing whatever works in terms of coaxing writerly development from my students.
On a side note, this article also commented on an old question of mine: To what extent should professional writers and their processes serve as a model for students? The answer seems to be that while these authors might offer some useful points, they are at the same time 1) working with extensive background in genre and technique knowledge that students will not have, 2) working in a very specific storytelling domain that may not involve the same strategies as whatever domain in which the student is working. Because of this, professional writing process should be used as a model only with caveats and supplements from other resources.